across | Across the Great Wall we can reach every corner in the world | Continuous Backup library

I think the problem is that you are trying to use the deprecated babel-eslint parser, last updated a year ago, which looks like it doesn't support ES6 modules. Updating to the latest parser seems to work, at least for simple linting.

So, do this:

• In package.json, update the line "babel-eslint": "^10.0.2", to "@babel/eslint-parser": "^7.5.4",. This works with the code above but it may be better to use the latest version, which at the time of writing is 7.16.3.
• Run npm i from a terminal/command prompt in the folder
• In .eslintrc, update the parser line "parser": "babel-eslint", to "parser": "@babel/eslint-parser",
• In .eslintrc, add "requireConfigFile": false, to the parserOptions section (underneath "ecmaVersion": 8,) (I needed this or babel was looking for config files I don't have)
• Run the command to lint a file

Then, for me with just your two configuration files, the error goes away and I get appropriate linting errors.

So after MUCH research and testing, I finally figured this out and I hope it can save anyone in the same situation I was in 😊

I have found two solutions that can solve this, one with a .env file that sometimes works, and the other solution is with css that I want to say always will solve this issue.

In the root folder level (the same level as the .gitignore, package.json, README.md, yarn.lock, /src), create a .env file and include the following in it:

Adding a rule to use file scoped namespaces in .editorconfig worked for me:

• create an .editorconfig file in the solution directory
• add following line/content below (docs, code - IDE0161)

Example .editorconfig file content:

This is what fixed it for me:

Solution

After taking a step back, I realized that I could try out what I did to fix the sass-loader issue: downgrading major versions.

Steps

• Downgraded style-loader 1 major version to 2.0.0: npm i style-loader@2.0.0
• Then, as luck would have it, I ran into the same issue with css-loader
• Downgraded css-loader 1 major version to 5.2.7: npm i css-loader@5.2.7

Summary

By downgrading all of the loaders one major version, I was able to get it to work.

References can't bind to objects with different type directly. Given const int& s = u;, u is implicitly converted to int firstly, which is a temporary, a brand-new object and then s binds to the temporary int. (Lvalue-references to const (and rvalue-references) could bind to temporaries.) The lifetime of the temporary is prolonged to the lifetime of s, i.e. it'll be destroyed when get out of main.

There's also no meaningful latency benefit to stronger memory orders, even if latency of seeing a change to a keep_running or exit_now flag was important.

IDK why Herb thinks stop.store shouldn't be relaxed; in his talk, his slides have a comment that says // not relaxed on the assignment, but he doesn't say anything about the store side before moving on to "is it worth it".

Of course, the load runs inside the worker loop, but the store runs only once, and Herb really likes to recommend sticking with SC unless you have a performance reason that truly justifies using something else. I hope that wasn't his only reason; I find that unhelpful when trying to understand what memory order would actually be necessary and why. But anyway, I think either that or a mistake on his part.

The ISO C++ standard doesn't say anything about how soon stores become visible or what might influence that, just Section 6.9.2.3 Forward progress

18. An implementation should ensure that the last value (in modification order) assigned by an atomic or synchronization operation will become visible to all other threads in a finite period of time.

Another thread can loop arbitrarily many times before its load actually sees this store value, even if they're both seq_cst, assuming there's no other synchronization of any kind between them. Low inter-thread latency is a performance issue, not correctness / formal guarantee.

And non-infinite inter-thread latency is apparently only a "should" QOI (quality of implementation) issue. :P Nothing in the standard suggests that seq_cst would help on an implementation where store visibility could be delayed indefinitely, although one might guess that could be the case, e.g. on a hypothetical implementation with explicit cache flushes instead of cache coherency. (Although such an implementation is probably not practically usable in terms of performance with CPUs anything like what we have now; every release and/or acquire operation would have to flush the whole cache.)

On real hardware (which uses some form of MESI cache coherency), different memory orders for store or load don't make stores visible sooner in real time, they just control whether later operations can become globally visible while still waiting for the store to commit from the store buffer to L1d cache. (After invalidating any other copies of the line.)

Stronger orders, and barriers, don't make things happen sooner in an absolute sense, they just delay other things until they're allowed to happen relative to the store or load. (This is the case on all real-world CPUs AFAIK; they always try to make stores visible to other cores ASAP anyway, so the store buffer doesn't fill up, and

See also (my similar answers on):

• Does hardware memory barrier make visibility of atomic operations faster in addition to providing necessary guarantees?
• If I don't use fences, how long could it take a core to see another core's writes?
• memory_order_relaxed and visibility
• Thread synchronization: How to guarantee visibility of writes (it's a non-issue on current real hardware)

The second Q&A is about x86 where commit from the store buffer to L1d cache is in program order. That limits how far past a cache-miss store execution can get, and also any possible benefit of putting a release or seq_cst fence after the store to prevent later stores (and loads) from maybe competing for resources. (x86 microarchitectures will do RFO (read for ownership) before stores reach the head of the store buffer, and plain loads normally compete for resources to track RFOs we're waiting for a response to.) But these effects are extremely minor in terms of something like exiting another thread; only very small scale reordering.

because who cares if the thread stops with a slightly bigger delay.

More like, who cares if the thread gets more work done by not making loads/stores after the load wait for the check to complete. (Of course, this work will get discarded if it's in the shadow of a a mis-speculated branch on the load result when we eventually load true.) The cost of rolling back to a consistent state after a branch mispredict is more or less independent of how much already-executed work had happened beyond the mispredicted branch. And it's a stop flag so the total amount of wasted work costing cache/memory bandwidth for other CPUs is pretty minimal.

That phrasing makes it sound like an acquire load or release store would actually get the the store seen sooner in absolute real time, rather than just relative to other code in this thread. (Which is not the case).

The benefit is more instruction-level and memory-level parallelism across loop iterations when the load produces a false. And simply avoiding running extra instructions on ISAs where an acquire or especially an SC load needs extra instructions, especially expensive 2-way barrier instructions, not like ARM64 ldapr.

BTW, Herb is right that the dirty flag can also be relaxed, only because of the thread.join sync between the reader and any possible writer. Otherwise yeah, release / acquire.

But in this case, dirty only needs to be atomic<> at all because of possible simultaneous writers all storing the same value, which ISO C++ still deems data-race UB. e.g. because of the theoretical possibility of hardware race-detection that traps on conflicting non-atomic accesses.

Here are some implications of calling component as function vs rendering it as element.

1. Potential violation of rules of hooks

When you call a component as a function (see TestB() below) and it contains usage of hooks inside it, in that case react thinks the hooks within that function belongs to the parent component. Now if you conditionally render that component (TestB()) you will violate one of the rules of hooks. Check the example below, click the re-render button to see the error:

Error: Rendered fewer hooks than expected. This may be caused by an accidental early return statement.

One work around would be to use your map2_dfr code, but then bind the columns that are needed to the map2_dfr output. Though you still have to drop the names column.